With a High IQ Comes Need for Special Education (psychology, doctor, assessment)

[jps-teacher]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Different contexts result in different arguments. Your dragging words from other contexts does not make them applicable here.

Please stick to the debate at hand and refrain from debating about posters. Thank you.

I'm putting you on ignore. I'd suggest you do the same.

A position about appropriate practices should not depend on where in the argument a poster is, unless there has really been a shift. Otherwise, it simply leaves other readers having no clue what a poster has said.

Yes, it simplifies making contradictory posts if all the other posters agree to ignore the contradictions, but it makes it very difficult for people to learn from the ideas in the conversation.

The debate is not about posters.

It is about:

1) Appropriate practices in education of gifted children.

2) Accuracy of statements of "fact"

a) The claim that educational level of mother is a major factor in educational attainment of her children, without any substantiation;

b) The claim that society would get more from a greater investment in the average student than from in gifted students - which wouldn't be true even if it were an equal investment per child, let alone if one just assumed raw dollar amounts, which would translate to anywhere from 10 times the per student amount up to 40 times more per student, depending on the percentage of gifted students.

c) The claim that when gifted students are given more, there is no return on the investment - a claim made with no information to support it.

3) The ideas presented in the article, concerning, among other things, the need to explicitly teach ethics and responsibility to gifted children.

p.s. No, I am not going to put you on ignore, so long as your posts contain mistaken claims about teaching, about students, and about gifted students in particular.

[flik_becky]

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

I don't doubt this but could you please provide your source (if you have already, I apologize for overlooking your reference). I'm curious about the survey methods for obtaining this statistic...

So, does that 400% rate accurately represent kids that are truly gifted? How is this giftedness measured (e.g. IQ tests)?.... Or, does it represent students who are labeled gifted by the schools but may, in fact, just be academically accelerated due to school, parental, or self pressure?

I'd be interested in looking at some research on the links between giftedness and/or academic pressure on depression/suicide rates.

Actually it is a pretty well known statistic. It is often a very large modivator for parents of gifted kids to homeschool. When looking at gifted kids, it is not an over all generalized. They look at the suicide rates between the gifted kids will unmet needs (not being allowed to move at their natural pace, including children who were only allowed to move ahead one grade but still did not meet their needs) against children that were allowed to move ahead at their true pace.

Here is an article that dicusses why people with gifted kids might homeschool. If you are not familiar with Hoagies site, it is a resource site for the gifted. What I like about it is that they gather many articles from a wide variety of sources. Another thing I both like and dislike about it is if I'm looking for a simple answer real quick, I might have to read a long carefully detailed technical article. Not all the articles are like this but it is obvious that these are very careful and serisuosly taken studies that took time to put together...some have been studying gifted individuals from their childhood...from the 70's. Most of those who do commit suicide are gifted in the visual arts and/or writting. Many of their articles have cited this same thing:

If you know that gifted kids drop out of high school before meeting their potential; if you know that drug abuse rates among gifted students whose needs are NOT met in classrooms are higher, proportionately, than non-gifted students or gifted students whose needs are met; and if you know that gifted students whose needs are NOT met have suicide rates 400% higher than the average student,.....No Child Left Behind has literally turned into No Gifted Child Allowed To Move Ahead. Homeschooling Gifted Kids, Page 2 of 2 - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

[jps-teacher]

Originally Posted by flik_becky

Actually it is a pretty well known statistic.

It is a pretty well known stat, and I have seen it bandied about, too.

But I have never (in 20 years of wondering) seen an actual citation for it.

I believe the rate is higher in the gifted population than general, though I know folks who dispute that, as well. So, if you can find a citation that is of an actual study, I would love it, because I never have managed to!

[flik_becky]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

I find the G&T crowd doesn't want to do analytical work. They also don't want more work. I teach two levels of chemistry and one of my higher chemistry courses has a disproportionate number of honors students. They complain about what they're learning more than my regular class. I hear whines of "What do we need to learn THIS for?" almost daily from them. One girl did this multiple times a day until I reminded her that she was suggesting I teach this class like I teach my lower chemistry class.

I find the higher level kids want the work to be easy and to look brilliant. They really don't want to work harder or think deeper. They just want a chance to shine (while doing the least amount of work). In two years, I've had, exactly, one student who wanted to go deeper and learn more. I've had multiple students who considered themselves brilliant but only really wanted a chance to show off without actually doing anything extra. I had one last year who, supposedly, was on directed study. Her final presentation looked like something she'd thrown togeter in an afternoon and she got mad when I didn't give her an A.

My younger daughter does want to go deeper...sometimes. Other times, she just wants to get away with the least work possible. She goes in spurts. Sometimes she jumps forward and sometimes she just levels for a while. For her, grade skipping has worked well.

Wow. I am floored with the way you speak of a a student, gifted or not. You belittle a child you believe to be gifted in publicly in front of their peers. Where do you get off thinking that is ok? IF she is indeed truly gifted, then she probably is impatient with the slow pace. My daughter is only 7 and asks that all the time...because I don't realize she already knows it and can move forward. A healtheir way to approach this is to pull her aside after class and show her a little respect with,"XYZ student, I understand that the details may seem pointless to you because you already understand them but there are students in the class that need those details. I understand that you feel your time may be wasted and you may want to get to the point more directly but these other students may actually feel put down by hearing the comments on a daily basis. It also distracts them, and myself with input from you that has no positive relevance to the lesson. I hope you understand that I'm not out to make you feel bad. I'm just trying to help you see the point of others, and being as intelligent as you are, I knew that you would understand that." I am willing to bet you'd get a positive response from it.

BUT if you are adding unnecessary information to the lesson on purpose for a one class while both classes have the same requirements set in place by the school for no other reason than the kids are smarter as to purposely set them up with a higher likelyhood that they might fail so that they can "experience" that, then GOOD FOR THEM!

You said, "I find the higher level kids want the work to be easy and to look brilliant. " Every study shows that most gifted kids will purposely underachieve so they can continue to fit in with their same age peers. Based on what you say, you have a smart student that likes to show off. Nothing more. I have a teacher friend whose daughter is gifted, especially artistically. The idiot teachers at her school have the students grade each others assignments. It only took a couple years of that and everyone alienating her because she never got anything wrong before she realized that she had better average a B on her assignments and test high on the tests. She decided she wanted to attend a gifted art school and came right out of her shell. The next year she went back to her old school by her own choice with renewed confidence and the communication skills and confidence to speak with the teachers to change some of those things.

[flik_becky]

Originally Posted by jps-teacher

It is a pretty well known stat, and I have seen it bandied about, too.

But I have never (in 20 years of wondering) seen an actual citation for it.

I believe the rate is higher in the gifted population than general, though I know folks who dispute that, as well. So, if you can find a citation that is of an actual study, I would love it, because I never have managed to!

Here is one you might find credible from: Suicide & Suicidal People: History, Types, Consequences, Soul Work

This seems especially true for people who step out of their communal or cultural mythos (shared subjective reality) to analyze it. (analyze life) According to de Catanzaro (1981), a threshold intelligence is necessary for suicide. In a study of 85 countries, national IQ was significantly and positively related to the national suicide rates.

There are no percent stats or anything though. He points to the Terman Study of Genius sample, whatever that is. Give me a few and I'll dig around some more.

[flik_becky]

Originally Posted by jps-teacher

It is a pretty well known stat, and I have seen it bandied about, too.

But I have never (in 20 years of wondering) seen an actual citation for it.

I believe the rate is higher in the gifted population than general, though I know folks who dispute that, as well. So, if you can find a citation that is of an actual study, I would love it, because I never have managed to!

I didn't think it would be long!

Ok, to not quote the entire thing and to sum it up, in the early 1920's, 1528 gifted kids were discovered and their entire lives were studied. Here it is:

As of 1960, 14 male and eight female suicides had been recorded within the Terman cohort (2); as of 1970, 20 male and eight female suicides had been recorded (5); and as of 1987 (at a median participant age of 75 years or more), 25 male and nine female suicides were known—meaning that up to this endpoint, one out of every 11 male deaths and one out of every 19 female deaths in this cohort was due to uicide (8). There appears to have been no update of the numbers of suicides since then. Therefore, a conservative (minimum) estimate of the Terman cohort’s lifetime suicide mortality rate is 2.2 percent. This is notably high, since the corresponding figure for noninstitutionalized populations not suffering from affective disorders is less than 0.5 percent.

But that does not end there...this article as 16 references to back it up. I'd go further into those but....it is nearly 1am and I've got to teach a class tomarrow. My 5 year old is very excited to use his nearly learned multiplication tricks so I'd better get some sleep so I don't disappiont him with the bags under my eyes. And I'd hate to disappoint my 7 year old with less than my average enthusiasm over another grade grammar lesson on "Past participle AGAIN!"

[jps-teacher]

Originally Posted by flik_becky

I didn't think it would be long!

Ok, to not quote the entire thing and to sum it up, in the early 1920's, 1528 gifted kids were discovered and their entire lives were studied. Here it is:

But that does not end there...this article as 16 references to back it up. I'd go further into those but....it is nearly 1am and I've got to teach a class tomarrow. My 5 year old is very excited to use his nearly learned multiplication tricks so I'd better get some sleep so I don't disappiont him with the bags under my eyes. And I'd hate to disappoint my 7 year old with less than my average enthusiasm over another grade grammar lesson on "Past participle AGAIN!"

Thank you, Becky!

When/if you have the chance to dive back in, do please feel free to be encouraged to dig.

The Terman kids are, so far as I have ever been able to tell, the only longitudinal study to keep that sort of data. But I will keep poking around.

[Ivorytickler]

OT special request. Since I've put JPS-Teacher on ignore, I'd like to ask that people not copy any replies to my posts he posts. I don't need to waste time on arguments that were never there in the first place.

Hopefully, he's put me on ignore too and this can end. If not, I don't want to know about it.

Thanks.

[flik_becky]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

OT special request. Since I've put JPS-Teacher on ignore, I'd like to ask that people not copy any replies to my posts he posts. I don't need to waste time on arguments that were never there in the first place.

Hopefully, he's put me on ignore too and this can end. If not, I don't want to know about it.

Thanks.

I guess I do not understand Ivory, since JPS-Teacher is the one who started this thread. Why did you come here then? I am confused. To have a difference of opinion is not a reason to ingore those ideas of others. I, on a very rare occasion, will agree with something you might say. Aconite and I are a great example of two people with some strong opinions. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. That does not mean that I respect her any less. But then again, if you have ME on ignore, then you will never even see this unless someone else quotes it, but at the risk of also being ignored.

[cdc3217]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

I believe the education system should serve all children equally. Not some in excess at the expense of others. While I do support a tracked system to avoid a situation where some kids are held back because others are slower, I don't support spending extra effort on the gifted. I don't see a return on that investment. If one were going to make an argument for spending extra money and time on any one group it would be the average group. That's where you could make the most gains that would positively impact society.

Honestly, how many gifted adults do you know? Giftedness is relative to age and ability of peers. Few of the gifted will turn out to be gifted adults. Most will simply be first to the finish line but others will catch up in time. That makes anything extra you do with this group pretty much a waste. They don't give more back because they got more.

However, our current system actually penalizes them by putting them in the same classes with students who must track at a much slower pace. I don't think that's right either. In order for edcuation to serve everyone, we need to get students on tracks that fit them. What each student does with that education will be up to them.

I see what you're saying. Time is a great equalizer. I know a lot of really smart people, and the ones who did not get the benefit of a good education don't feel a sense of merit-based entitlement to be great, and I do see that in those who had the benefit of a better education.

I think all I want is good teaching that pushes all students ahead to the best of their abilities. I really don't care how we get there, if it works. I'm not sure it has to take more resources to provide gifted students an appropriate experience, but if they are successful and satisfied in school, I think that makes them more productive in secondary education and in their careers.

S